Kirk,>>>Kurla(k) does well what he is paid to do...generate volatility for ML to use to generate trading and commissions. <<<
I invest in order to make money, therefore if I were smart I would take Kurlak's advice.
WRONG!!!!!
At any one time I own less than ten different stocks, mostly in technology (with the exception of KO which I have held from way back). I spend a lot of time doing my own fundamental research - management, products, markets, finances and maybe some intangibles.
I am a small investor and I cannot afford to pay someone else to manage my money for me. I can only follow what I believe is logical.
Kurlak, on the other hand, is not about fundamental research, it is more about Tom Kurlak and what he could do to manipulate the market. He is basically a leech. He adds nothing to the economy and he adds nothing to a better understanding of how the economy works. He is not "content to predict the movements of stocks (he) covers on the basis of (their) fundamental strengths and weaknesses". He is out to influence market psychology and to move the market for his own personal benefit and not necessarily for his company or his clients.
So far he is winning - and winning big time. He is taking money out of my pocket - the money I have earned and invested. He is at least partially responsible for Intel's depressed PE.
Don't get me wrong. I'm deeply impressed by what Kurlak has accomplished. I only wish that he could have succeeded by doing something that is useful to society.
As an example, Kurlak's friend, Jim Cramer, is out to educate and to help others see a better return on their investment. He does good by doing good. There is a big difference between a guy like Jim Cramer and a guy like Tom Kurlak.
Mary
|
